U.S. divorce rates for various faithgroups, age groups, & geographic areas

Divorce rates in the U.S.:

"There is consensus that the overall U.S. divorce rate had a brief spurt after WW2, followed by a decline, then started rising in the 1960s and even more quickly in the 1970s, then leveled off [in the] 1980s and [has since] declined slightly." 7 However, such gross statistics are misleading. There are a number of factors involved that obscure the real data:

1. The normal lifestyle of American young adults is to live together for a period of time in a type of informal trial marriage. These relationships frequently do not endure.

2. Couples enter into their first marriage at a older age than in the past.

3. A growing percentage of committed couples have decided to live in a common-law relationship rather than get married. This is particularly true among some elderly who fear reduction in government support payments.

** Barna uses the term "non-denominational" to refer to Evangelical Christian congregations that are not affiliated with a specific denomination. The vast majority are fundamentalist in their theological beliefs. [More info. at http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_n.htm#non]

Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise "questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families." The data challenge "the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage."

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said:

"In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot."

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."

What I've read from this is the religious groups who live life most rationally... most mainstream... and non believers, have the lowest divorce rates.

What I see is... people who don't go to church at all, or people who go to church very casually, and don't sweat biblical nonsense in most of their daily lives, have the best chance of marital success.

Evangelicals are stuck in a struggle where many of them realize that logically, it's important to take the bible literally... after all, if there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin, so why did we need Jesus. This forces them to try to accept everything in the bible literally and that causes stress in relationships.

Instead of a guy like Ted Haggard just having fun and meeting a girl who likes the wild stuff he does, or just admitting to being gay or bi or whatever he is, he buried his desires in the sand and stuck out a lifestyle in complete contradiction to what he was, until he finally got caught hiring male prostitutes.

This happens to priests who abuse kids or ministers who sleep with wives of church members, which happens.

Most Catholics, Lutherans, agnostics and atheists don't live their life around some biblical code. Catholics and Lutherans have certain values like the golden rule and trying to do charity, but largely don't steep themselves in the nonsensical stuff day after day. It's just a quick, boring service, go do some good deeds, and forget about it for a week.

The more you try to apply biblical teaching to your life, the more buried in it you are, the more likely your relationship is to fail.

If god existed, this would be the opposite.

And Luk, this is one of the reasons why most catholics or lutherans don't bug me as much... largely, they're just like me except they're busy for another hour each week.

Logged

You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE... and a few other letters. B and E and V and I think E.

The problem here is the attitude of the Church of Rome to divorce. Historically, there was no divorce. Thus, it could be said that the divorce rate amongst Catholics was nil - but that was no indication of the success of a marriage.

The Catholic Church still refuses to marry divorcees and still restricts the activities of divorcees in its flock.

The above militate against divorce being an option.

The atheist, on the other hand, is culturally free to express his or her desire for divorce.

We can thus say that if 21% of atheists want a divorce, nothing stops them. However, in the case of Catholics, although the actual divorce rate is given as 21%, there will be a higher number who would prefer to be divorced but who are prevented from taking this action.

I hope this helps you come to some sensible conclusion.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Conclusion. The divorce rate is lower among Catholic believers. Which is the opposite idea of what was proposed before I asked to back the claim. Do you understand why I asked for numbers?Does the numbers you shared with us tell us that 79% of Catholic married couple live their whole life married in the eyes of the law or just in the eyes of the church or in the eyes of the church and the law?

Please write more posts like the one I linked below, Lukvance. You might not find traction here regarding your religious beliefs, but it's evident that there are other points of convergence that we can work at. And who knows? You might find that it isn't so important to broach the religious stuff with people here as you originally thought.

I agree with you nogodsforme. We come a long way. I'm not sure there is much work left to do in our society today. I believe that only underdeveloped countries or countries in development have still trouble with women equality.

I'm not, strictly speaking, going to argue with you about this, because I agree with you in general. However, I disagree on specifics, so I would like to discuss them. My martial arts teacher told me once that no matter how far we get, there's always just as much to do, although the nature of the work changes. It is certainly true that western societies have come a long way towards social equality, but it is equally true we still have much work left to do.

I have an analogy for you, since you like analogies; we have done much work towards planting the tree called equality, but its roots are still shallow and the soil we have planted it in is poor and rocky. It would take very little effort to uproot it.

Quote from: Lukvance

If you back that claim with numbers you'll realize that in the USA there is the same salary for the same job and the same amount of studies. Man or woman.

The study I linked answers most of the points you raised, and others you didn't (thus, I am not going to answer them one-by-one, as my time is limited for the near future). I highly recommend you read it, as it should help to illuminate things for you.

Lukvance, what you think is true may not be backed up by the facts. That is why it is good to check out the facts before, not after you write a post. The numbers show that Catholics get divorced at the same rate as atheists, agnostics and Lutherans. Evidently, god is not holding Catholic couples together very well, if atheists are just as good at staying married.

Guess which religion has the lowest divorce rate of all? Muslims. That's right, Muslims. I have had that discussion with my Muslim students, who brag that Muslims have a very low divorce rate. True, the divorce rate is very low in many Muslim societies, lower than any Christian group. But it is very, very difficult to get divorced in many Muslim cultures, and is shameful, especially for women.[1]

Likewise, there are many Catholics who are divorced, but they are not considered Catholics any more, right? If Catholics are not allowed to get divorced, it is a bit dishonest to compare their divorce rate to people whose beliefs allow divorce. Among Catholics there is the "house divorce" where couples live in the same house, but basically are no longer married--some even barely talk to each other. If divorce is made very difficult and shameful, people will put up with all kinds of hell rather than get divorced. A divorce often has bad outcomes, but the house divorce could psychologically destroy a family as well. I am not sure that is good for anyone.

Bottom line is that people should be very knowledgeable about themselves and about marriage before getting married. People should not get married as teenagers just so they can get away from their parents and have sex. Then they find themselves at 30 legally and financially bound to someone they barely have anything in common with, dealing with several kids, in-laws, jobs, the whole nine yards. No wonder other people start to look good.

However, that is exactly what strict religions promote-- ignorant young people with very little life experience trying to form a lifelong commitment based on sexual attraction, relying on magical forces to hold them together. When life is upwards of 90 years, people should not even think about marriage until their late 20's or early 30's! Get some life experience first--get the craziness out of your system and figure out what you want out of life before you settle down and make kids with someone.

Conclusion. The divorce rate is lower among Catholic believers. Which is the opposite idea of what was proposed before I asked to back the claim. Do you understand why I asked for numbers?Does the numbers you shared with us tell us that 79% of Catholic married couple live their whole life married in the eyes of the law or just in the eyes of the church or in the eyes of the church and the law?

Catholics, Lutherans, atheists and Agnostics are all sitting at 21%.

This isn't because Catholics are the most holy... it's because they're among the most casual of believers. Everyone I know who is Catholic is just like me in every other aspect of their lives. They say a memorized prayer before meals, go to church once a week, go to confession, and do pretty much whatever they like.

Catholics used to be more repressed, but, they are less so now... their religion barely impacts their daily life, so, it doesn't hinder their success.

Catholics don't take the Bible literally... they don't think the earth is 6,000 years old... they toss out most of the Old Testament, and cherry pick the best verses to quickly mash through in a fast Sunday Mass.

Maybe people walk out of there reminded to do good for a day or two, which, if you are emotionally intelligent, you remind yourself of daily.

Again, this is why I LIKE CATHOLICS better than EVANGELICALS. You guys are more like atheists than any other group.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 12:05:43 PM by YRM_DM »

Logged

You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE... and a few other letters. B and E and V and I think E.

There's a lot of talk about how Islam is so oppressive of women...because of course it is.

But here in the USA, plenty of Christian groups oppress women as well. Catholicism still forbids women to be priests, for instance.

A number other Christian denominations, such as Mennonites, Amish, Mormons, Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox also specifically place women in a position of subordination to men.

I have a friend who grew up in a Russian Orthodox community here in Oregon. In 1985, when she was 15, a nice Russian Orthodox boy asked for her hand in marriage. She refused but then her grandparents, who raised her, found out, they coerced her into marrying the guy..they specifically cited the guy's familiarity with the Bible and church going habits as reason enough. She had to travel to Utah for this, since she was too young to legally marry in Oregon. The guy ended up being an alcoholic, and after a few years it was so bad she got external help and divorced him...now he's homeless, living on the street. Point is, it was 20th century USA, and Christians, that forced his girl to marry against her will.

(When I heard this story from my friend, I admit, it made me want to kick her grandfather's ass. But I digress...)

Islam can be more extreme in some instances than Xianity, but both Christianity and Islam both view women as inferior. The view of women as inferior, subordinate, is deeply imbedded in the Old Testament, and as long as anyone places any legitimacy on that text (outside of being interesting mythology) that poison pill will continue to affect the world. Of course, if theists ever had the 'nads to admit their Holy Books are full of BS, then their claims of authority might fall apart. Their own feelings of supremacy are more important than human rights. So there you go.

Divorce is only now reaching towards equality because men cannot run away as easily as they used to. We now have the law chasing them instead of mothers without resources.

Deadbeat dads are not getting away as easily anymore.

When we have as many unwed fathers as mothers requesting the children, only then will the courts equalize what they do.

I cannot see men stepping up as often as women will and thus women will always deserve the highest returns.

RegardsDL

I'm personally a father who was surprised by a divorce demand that seemingly came out of nowhere. Once I found out that she wasn't even interested in trying to attend marital therapy, I knew I had to let go, and my only requests were to have half custody of my daughter, and not to destroy me financially. She complied with the first request and was halfway on the second. She complied easily because she wanted to move on with her new relationship quickly and not be dragged down in a long court fight.

I never cheated, abused her physically (we had a few mutual yelling matches as things broke down), had any addictions nor did I ever get laid off or blow our money (though she did).

Here's an article, written by a female marital counselor who is famous for her appearances on various talk shows, talking about how 2/3 of divorces are filed by women.

During my divorce, I read as many possible books on relationships and whatnot in any attempt to see if the relationship could be salvaged. I missed some obvious things I would have seen now, but didn't see then, largely due to being a theist at the time. But to me, I was totally blindsided. There were no ultimatums building up to this or clear communication of problems.

My ex-wife is still a devout "believer" in spite of cheating and rushing through a divorce.

After having gained more insight as to how relationships fall apart, but not being able to do anything to help my own relationship, I spent a few years on a relationship support site giving advice and trying to save some families. The devastation on a kids face when they realize their parents are splitting up is enough reason to try to see if a healthy relationship can be salvaged.

I don't think people should stay in an unhealthy relationship, but, I do think that people quit on relationships that could be made healthy again... they then take the same problems to their next relationships, which also fail.

In the years helping couples... I noticed the same problems coming up over and over and over again.

Men usually didn't come to communicate or ask for help at all.Women came to the site to get validation for their decision to leave the relationship... they'd already met someone else and wanted sympathy rather than any kind of practical advice on how to possibly revive their current marriage.

You'll find that a lot of guys DO want their kids.

There are more guys in my situation than guys who beat their wives and ran off with a stripper.

If you are a financially responsible, loving father, and my child would happily vouch for my efforts and abilities to have the best parenting relationship possible, I hate to tell you this but marriage is a real risk for you.

If you meet a woman whose parents have failed to teach her financial responsibility, or who makes decisions based on emotion and faith instead of logic, and who can't rise above her lizard brain desires for a new mate after 5-10 years, then she will find a way to paint herself the victim and set you back a decade or more, financially.

I have half custody... but I still pay support, and I still pay for loads of things that my daughter wants to do. And frankly, I got a good deal.

I personally know dads who want more parenting time with their kids, and don't have the money left to fight for it.

There are literally law firms that make their entire business to cater to dads who are being divorced by surprise against their wishes, and have no choice but to suffer through the awful process.

I drive far out of my way every day that I have my daughter and I'm damn well never going to abandon her.

There are many, many, many, many guys like me who thought we did everything possible to be a decent husband and father, who were forced through divorces.

There are many, many, many women who know how to work the system to make themselves a sympathetic character when in reality, they've just lost those butterflies and found them with a new guy... who they will go on to lose the butterflies for after the chemicals wear off...

This is JUST as much of a problem as guys who are cheating dogs.

Women also are JUST as abusive as guys, possibly more abusive... they just aren't typically as capable of doing damage. In spite of never throwing a punch in any relationship, I have been punched by women.

Fortunately, since discarding my faith, I've made better choices about the type of women I'll entertain having a relationship with. I won't settle for someone who would physically hit me or use passive aggressive tactics. Since discarding faith, I've had better relationships. Even the relationships that ended, ended on healthy terms or even continued to have good feelings towards a person that maybe just wasn't quite the right match.

I'm now moving into a real committed relationship with someone who is great with my child, and seems to rise above her lizard brain instincts just as I do myself.

But please make no mistake, women have abused the system just as much as men... they just do it in different ways.

Men and women are both equally capable of doing damage and being hurtful, when, really, our goal should be to do as little harm to anyone else as possible.

Also consider that, if you're going to get a divorce... hey, fair enough, it may be needed... but if you've spent 10 years with someone, what would be the harm in investing 3-4 months of therapy to identify the breakdowns and see if they can be fixed?

Even in a case where a couple tries therapy, but the problems can not be fixed, at least the problems are identified so both people can grow moving forward and have a healthier "next" relationship. There can be closure and respect instead of bitterness and greed in taking as much as possible.

And again, this is not just from personal experience... there is significant data that backs this up. There's been a real shift. Women have much better equality now, which is great, but the laws still haven't quite caught up yet as far as divorce goes.

Here is one example to consider.

A man gets half custody with his ex wife... they both make 60,000 a year, but, she's considered the 51% and he ends up paying the support.

According to the divorce tables, he gets a small discount for having half custody, but they'll assume that the child should require over $1,000 a month, not counting daycare.

He'll end up paying half of daycare or more, + $500-600 a month. He'll still buy clothes, food, and put a roof over the child's head for his "half the time"

There isn't any possible way to spend that much money on a four year old child in a month... unless you're just crapping money at new shoes every month, $100 hair cuts for a baby, tablets, games, trips to Disney.

The support money comes in tax free to the person getting support.

The items paid for WITH the support are tax deductible like daycare costs or insurance costs.

I once told my ex-wife, if she really thought the arrangement was fair, I'd happily switch places with her and take the support instead... of course she declined because it's massively screwed in the direction of the person GETTING the support.

(unless you had a kid with a total deadbeat)

The laws which are designed to punish deadbeats end up crippling normal, responsible fathers.

So baby gets trips to Paris with mom while she gets trips to McDonald's playground with dad.

This crap really HAPPENS and it bothers me that I'm not sure you're aware of it, or that you might discount what I'm saying here. I'd bet my life on what I'm telling you though. It's really brutal.

The solution, IMO, should be that both boys and girls are taught more emotional maturity and relationship and communication skills at an early age. Neither sex should have to experience pain. Women have had the worse end of the stick for most of history, and now, pain can be inflicted badly in either direction.

It is not productive to be a vindictive person, whether that's a guy threatening his partner or a woman burning his possessions on the lawn and getting away with it because she can claim they are hers since there is a marriage contract in place.

(this didn't happen to me but I've seen it happen to non-cheating guys)

It's not that women are bad or evil or any of that garbage... it's just that they are equally capable of abuse as men. 100% equally capable.

Lukvance, what you think is true may not be backed up by the facts. That is why it is good to check out the facts before, not after you write a post. The numbers show that Catholics get divorced at the same rate as atheists, agnostics and Lutherans. Evidently, god is not holding Catholic couples together very well, if atheists are just as good at staying married.

I don't see the numbers you are talking about. I would really love to find a real comparison between the 2 (atheists/agnostics vs Catholics) but don't seem to find anything worth looking at. For example, the website : http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm gives us data dating 14 years back. I'd love to have more accurate data since in 10 years so many things changed! (14 years ago we didn't have Wikipedia, Facebook, skype, twitter, YOUTUBE...etc)I love statistics when we have the exact numbers of people involved in the poll and where the survey was made. (was it in a particular state or in all the USA, how many Atheist did they "ask"? How many Catholics?)

Catholic religion do not allow divorce once you are married in front of God. It doesn't mean that you can't separate from your wife, it just mean that the church won't recognize you going back in your word. You made a promise, you better keep it, we won't celebrate/acknowledge you going back on it.There are many cases were the marriage is cancelled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)There are cases were the people are divorced in the eyes of the law and annulled in the eyes of the Catholic churchThere are cases were the people are divorced in the eyes of the law but still married in the eyes of the Catholic church (they can't get married again in a Catholic church). This, I believe, is what the 21% presented by the website linked by Graybeard is about.

But many fundamentalist or evangelical couples base their marriages on "very irrational and unrealistic principles," he said. "They say, 'Put God first in your marriage' whatever that means to them 'be faithful in church, be a good Christian, pray a lot, attend church, and God will work everything out for you.' Then they find out that's a lot of hogwash." He's also seen problems when some fundamentalist men, in leading the household, become "cruel dictators" who "expect their wives to become servants." Gary Thomas, author of Sacred Marriage and director of the Center for Evangelical Spirituality in Bellingham, Wash., believes that men should head the family, but that means they ought to be servant-leaders. "I think in many ways Christian marriage is harder," he said. "We're expected to forgive. We're expected to give of ourselves. Paul tells husbands that they ought to have the mind of a martyr." A possible problem he sees is what he calls "the myth of the evangelical husband." "This is a husband who is expected to make enough money that his wife can stay home, who goes to Promise Keepers and dates his wife every week and dates his kids every week and takes his kids out every month to talk about abstinence and men get tired," Mr. Thomas said.

But that's no excuse for divorce. Christians should use marriage to seek "holiness, not happiness," he said. Mr. Thomas believes that the Christian church contributes to divorce by being too tolerant. "We have bent over backwards not to be judgmental," he said. That's a mistake, in Mr. Thomas' opinion. He believes that Christians need to think of their marriage as a chance to serve Christ. "A Christian who gets divorced puts their happiness before their devotion to Christ."

Notice how the judgement and intolerance in the first paragraph that causes the problems is followed by "churches are too tolerant"?

What I'd really love to see... in all this, is people fighting for healthy relationships.

Overwhelmingly people think that if you have an unhappy relationship, it's better to get divorced, and some religious people feel that it's better to stay unhappy and serve god...

But many couples did start out as two rational, intelligent, well meaning people who were attracted to one another. With work on communication skills and understanding how the other person works and functions, it is possible to turn an unhealthy relationship back into a healthy one.

We live in a society that doesn't proactively get these skills into people's hands... and if you're a successful person, having children with someone is just about the biggest gamble you can take. If they leave you and get support, they can simply live off you for the rest of their lives.

Let's say I marry Beyonce and we have a baby. I go into the marriage with the full intent of wanting kids with a successful person, knowing that if we break up, I can get support. After a few years, I don't want to be married any more or work on it at all... maybe I've met another woman but live in a no-fault state. I win custody of the kids, and now she has to pay $50,000 a month in child support because her career doesn't allow her to be around to raise the kids, and if she quit, she'd forfeit her earning potential which the court won't allow.

So having done nothing at all honorable, having done nothing creative or extraordinary to earn the money other than having sex with her (which sure, if that happened, it's extraordinary... but c'mon)... I get some people's yearly salary EVERY MONTH for over a decade?

I haven't written a single song, trained my voice, performed on stage, paid any dues, grinded out fame and fortune to become a top selling musician...

All I've done is marry Beyonce. If I'd stayed single or married anyone else, I'd have achieved nothing extraordinary... but now I'm owed millions in support?

What on earth could possibly make any court think I deserve half her money and $50,000 a month in support? How in any rational being's mind is that fair? In this described case, she hasn't even cheated or done anything wrong, I've just decided I've had enough because the butterflies are no longer there.

Our current system is set up to be legalized theft, and it's hard to make any rational case how it could be anything else. It happens on a smaller scale to regular middle class and upper middle class people who got married because they expected the partner to stick around and help create a healthy family situation.

I keep thinking of examples of friends and ex-co-workers who've been just destroyed by this system... makes me want to puke.

Any wealthy person married without a pre-nup,where it's legal,gets what they deserve. Poor middle class and upper middle class people can have financial lives ruined by the burden of a spouse who is sick of them,and has the court on their side

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

I asked if you could come to a sensible conclusion: it is now obvious that you cannot.

I'm not sure what is wrong with you, but I bet it is hard to spell. The above figures show that the divorce rates amongst Catholics, Lutherans and atheists are the same.

To the shallow thinking (I am looking at you, Luk) this might indicate that the marriages of Catholics, Lutherans and atheists are all equally successful.

However, you chose to ignore the post above and its criticism of the Catholic approach to divorce. This skews the figures and tends to indicate that the number of successful Catholic marriages should be considered to be somewhat lower.

Even if this is not the case, then as the divorce rates amongst Catholics, Lutherans and atheists are the same, and this would indicate that religion has no effect on divorce rates, despite the fact that the churches disapprove of divorce.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I like the fact that you gave us numbers Graybeard. Thank you.I was looking for numbers closer to our reality. Not numbers dating before the invention of YouTube.I'd love to find some sort of yearly based progression chart too.The reason why I did not post any research results here is because I didn't find any that was conclusive. Or going FOR the statement made by YRM_DM

The higher divorce rate among believers is solid evidence that, deep down, they do not believe in God.[...]Religion works against the chances of having good relationship coping skills... working so solve problems before they become irrevocable.

I like the fact that you gave us numbers Graybeard. Thank you.I was looking for numbers closer to our reality. Not numbers dating before the invention of YouTube.I'd love to find some sort of yearly based progression chart too.The reason why I did not post any research results here is because I didn't find any that was conclusive. Or going FOR the statement made by YRM_DM

The higher divorce rate among believers is solid evidence that, deep down, they do not believe in God.[...]Religion works against the chances of having good relationship coping skills... working so solve problems before they become irrevocable.

My feeling is that Catholics do have some stigma against divorce but as I said, they don't rely on God in their day to day lives so much. A prayer over dinner and at night time maybe, but otherwise, Catholics largely live as if nothing will happen unless they take the action themselves... i.e. Catholics don't pray for something and wait for God to actually do something. Catholics don't pray for a job and then not go on job interviews.

This is just from personal observation, not scientific Luk, so, I'm not asking you to take my observation as irrevocable fact.

My catholic friends who are happily married don't rely on God to work out their marital differences... they act the same as any non-believing couple and build communication skills.

You may think I mean this as an insult but I do not.

Further, I think Graybeard has gone out of his way to shower the post with every bit of evidence he can find. I've personally looked for more recent studies, I can't find much. You?

I'd love to have a study from two weeks ago that we could pick apart and analyze... if you have a link to one, please feel free to share it.

I think you'd admit that in spite of our differences, people on these forums have gone out of their way to make solid cases from links, studies, and bible verses to you, and they've read links that you provide.

You get far more robust and respectful debate here than you will on most religious forums, where people shut you down after a few minutes...

And I apologize a bit to anyone who could see that, obviously... so-called-christians using excuses and divorce to devastate middle and upper middle class partners who genuinely wanted a healthy family is a hot button issue for me. It pisses me off. I think if someone wants to argue that they are a christian, and they make a promise to god, and really believe that they'll be rewarded in heaven for having faith in god... they have NO EXCUSE EVER for leaving a marriage. Even a GOOD excuse is supposedly NO excuse for failing to keep a promise to God.

I'm not arguing that no one should ever LEAVE a marriage... I'm arguing that anyone who thinks God is real, and made a promise before God, should fight to keep that promise harder than they'd try to do any other single thing in their entire life.

Logged

You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE... and a few other letters. B and E and V and I think E.

Further, I think Graybeard has gone out of his way to shower the post with every bit of evidence he can find. I've personally looked for more recent studies, I can't find much. You? I'd love to have a study from two weeks ago that we could pick apart and analyze... if you have a link to one, please feel free to share it.

I think you'd admit that in spite of our differences, people on these forums have gone out of their way to make solid cases from links, studies, and bible verses to you, and they've read links that you provide.

In nearly every line of work, women face a pay gap. Among the many occupations for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics collects data that allow for valid comparison, women’s earnings are higher than men’s in only a handful.While a pay gap exists in nearly every occupational field, jobs traditionally associated with men tend to pay better than traditionally female jobs for the same level of skill required.And even in 2014, women and men still tend to work in different kinds of jobs. This segregation of occupations is a major factor behind the pay gap.

I'd really like to have a Table with the women's diplomas and men's diplomas coupled with the same job.I believe that most men are payed more than women for the same job (for example financial managers from figure because men have a better diploma than women. (They are more knowledgeable for the task at hand)

I'd really like to have a Table with the women's diplomas and men's diplomas coupled with the same job.I believe that most men are payed more than women for the same job (for example financial managers from figure because men have a better diploma than women. (They are more knowledgeable for the task at hand)

They already correlated the levels of education on page 15, under figure 6. It compares median weekly earnings by level of education and gender. Across the board, for every level of education from "no high school diploma" to "doctoral degree", women are paid no more than 81% of what men earn - and that's only for those without high school diplomas. For every level of education above that, women are paid less than 80%.

Do you have any evidence to support your statements about the pay disparity? If not, I think you need to think seriously about how justified your belief is.

I like the fact that you gave us numbers Graybeard. Thank you.I was looking for numbers closer to our reality. Not numbers dating before the invention of YouTube.I'd love to find some sort of yearly based progression chart too.The reason why I did not post any research results here is because I didn't find any that was conclusive. Or going FOR the statement made by YRM_DM

The higher divorce rate among believers is solid evidence that, deep down, they do not believe in God.[...]Religion works against the chances of having good relationship coping skills... working so solve problems before they become irrevocable.

I am not sure if youtube and social media have affected the divorce rate as much as the difficult economic situations families face. We do know that the number one stated reason for family breakup is money problems. And the most religious bible belt states have worse economies, and higher divorce rates than the liberal northern states.

But there is no way to know anything for sure without good research. Instead of waiting for someone else to raise the funds to develop and conduct the research, maybe the churches should do it? Of course, it would have to be done correctly for statistical validity, with control groups, large enough samples, and counting all the results, not just the results that make the church look good. In my experience, religious groups don't like research that reveals problems with their approach to social problems. That is why they are so often hostile to science in general.[1]

It would be nice if more religious organizations did the kind of monitoring and evaluation of their programs that secular organizations routinely do.

For example, at my college, we have to constantly do assessments of our programs to see if they are effective. How many students are succeeding in their classes, how many are graduating, how many are going into good careers? How many new immigrants are learning enough English to get a better job? If we are not doing well, we want to know it so we can do better. More to the point, if we are not doing well, we lose funding, lose our prestige and students won't want to come here.

Do churches evaluate and assess their relationship groups or counseling programs to see if they are successful? Do they conduct objective surveys of the couples in their congregations to see if the spiritual teachings are helping them to remain married and committed? Do they use the feedback to improve their counseling programs? Or do they tell people to keep praying and reading the bible and if that does not work, well, they are just failures and sinners?

If religious people in general are not able to stay married any better than atheists, something must be wrong. The religions don't seem to be helping. Or maybe people are just people and religion does not change that, although religions never want to admit that.

You mean "abstinence only" sex ed programs don't reduce teenage pregnancy? Kids only postpone sex for a few months after completing the program, and then take off the virgin-till-marriage rings and have risky unprotected sex? Abstinence programs are linked to increased pregnancies and STD's among teens, because they discourage contraceptives and condom use? We don't want to hear any of that. We know that abstinence is correct. Kids who don't follow the rules deserve to get herpes. Throw away that report and keep teaching abstinence dammit!

Do you have any evidence to support your statements about the pay disparity? If not, I think you need to think seriously about how justified your belief is.

I don't have evidence beside what I see around me. Each time I look at a worker, if there is a pay gap compared to his colleague doing the same job that he does, it's always because of education. (I've seen women earning more than men for the same job)But no, I don't have evidence. Hence the question to the more knowledgeable.The chart No.6 doesn't help me at all. Since the same diploma can lead to a great payed job or not.I like the example of lawyers. They all have the same diploma. Do you know how high is the gap between the best payed lawyer and the worst?

The chart No.6 doesn't help me at all. Since the same diploma can lead to a great payed job or not.

*rapidly blinks eyes*

...what? Maybe you're looking at the wrong chart? The one being referenced is titled Median Weekly Earnings, by Level of Education and Gender, 2011.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I once attended a research seminar on women's earnings in academia (since I am a woman in academia). Their very detailed, carefully designed study showed that the most highly educated women in the country, brilliant professors and scientists, earn on average about $200,000 less over a life time than the men at the exact same levels.

At the time the researchers did the study (it was 20 years ago), that amount was equivalent to the price of a new home. Men basically got enough extra pay to buy a house. Women did not get the extra house.

The researchers controlled for everything--time out for kids, type of degree, areas of study, hours worked, number of publications in prestigious journals, part of the country they worked. And the men still earned way more.

Here is why: the researchers discovered that women undervalued themselves when they negotiated their initial salaries right out of school. This base salary is what subsequent raises, bonuses, etc are calculated on. Men overvalued themselves, or at least thought they were worth more money, and negotiated accordingly.[1]

Women, when offered $40,000, were happy to be employed in their field and took the money. Men held out for 45 or 50,000. So later on, as they move up the career ladder the men are getting more and more money for the same work as the women. The initial difference could be only $5-10,000 but that adds up a lot over a 20, 30 or even 40 year career.

Knowing this information helped me when I negotiated my salary at my first job after getting my doctorate. I made the college come up with more money than their initial offer, because the research showed that is what men routinely do, and women rarely do.

1 - Since religious folks are often harping on the sanctity of marriage and god inspired marriage and keeping it holy and all that... it absolutely SHOULD be a priority for churches to do honest, scientific studies of marriage and try to help their members improve their success rate. Many churches make it a requirement to attend counseling before marriage, but, these classes may not be focusing on the right things. It's tough because as a non-believer, I think sexual hangups hamper the chances for marital success... guilt trips over having relations with the lights on or watching a steamy movie on HBO aren't helpful to a marriage. Yet these are the things that church classes focus on rather than communication skills and real problems like finances.

2 - I'd read somewhere that the #1 cited cause for divorce was not abuse, money, or cheating, but "neglect". Again, it's tough to find current studies or know exactly how true this might be. Money is definitely a huge factor though.

3 - As you said above here, I know many women... former partners, co-workers, etc. They DO undervalue themselves in negotiations. I've helped several women with the art of the interview and negotiation and asking for more money. I helped an ex that I am still friends with get her first raise in 8 years and it was a 40% salary increase. I helped her with facts and arguments and how to handle the responsive in a non-emotional way.

I helped my ex-wife to more than triple her salary in 6 years. We would practice interviews, promotion requests, and counter-arguments for hours. I'd help with resumes and reasonable things to request.

At my current job, a co-worker doing similar work, who is female, makes less than me... she was laid off prior to getting this job and did not negotiate for more vacation or more money. I was recruited prior to that, and didn't need the job, so I calmly suggested that it needed to be worth it for me to make the switch. I was able to get a raise and similar vacation allocation over my prior job because I wasn't going in desperate.

Women also have to take time off if they decide to have children which, though not necessarily fair, may slow down their promotion chances a bit. There's no biological way for men to give birth though, so, this is just a thing that will never be exactly balanced.

Still if women learn to negotiate for what they are worth, and fight for benefits they desire, then they are equally capable of getting raises and promotions. I don't believe this is due to someone hiring me and saying, "I'll pay YRM more because he is a guy" I believe I would make considerably less if I was less capable at negotiating. It wouldn't matter what sex I was.

I believe that it's a real issue. Guys, if you have daughters, make sure you empower them to calmly debate and negotiate for what they are truly worth on the job market. Help your wives and partners as well if they are lacking in this area. I back up what I'm saying here as I've taken action on this multiple times in my life.

There is so much more information available online nowadays about average salary ranges for various jobs that there is no reason to go into an interview unprepared. Just knowing what people of your skills are earning at different levels is useful.

Similar low salary mechanisms are in effect for people of color, who are more desperate for good jobs and way more likely to undervalue themselves in salary negotiations. Women of color, esp. latinas, are the worse paid at every level of skill and education when compared to white men, white women and men of color.[1]

Anecdotally and with a bit of research behind it, employers know that they can get women and minorities for cheaper. (Of course that works even more for non-citizens!) This puts white men at a disadvantage in hiring as the workplace becomes more diverse, because they are generally far better negotiators. Why hire the white male lawyer who expects $20,000 more starting salary than the black female lawyer if both are equally qualified candidates?

A level playing field, where everyone knows what they are worth and is ready to negotiate hard for their salary-- and nobody is so much more desperate for a job that they are willing to undervalue themselves-- benefits all workers.

Workers of the world unite! We have nothing to lose but low salaries! Solidarnosc forever!

I think that, somewhere in our collective historical psyches, we are so happy not to be picking crops, cleaning or cooking (or hooking) for a living that we brown-skinned females accept much lower pay for professional jobs than we should.

I don't have evidence beside what I see around me. Each time I look at a worker, if there is a pay gap compared to his colleague doing the same job that he does, it's always because of education. (I've seen women earning more than men for the same job)

And how often have you actually checked on how much they make? When you've checked, have you referred to more than one source? Who do you ask when you check these things?

Also, remember that we're talking about the median point, the halfway point between the upper half of data samples and the lower half. What that means is that half of all women make more than that amount, but half of them make less. In effect, it is possible that some women will make more than some men - since 50% of all men make less than their own median point - but what you're in effect comparing are the best-paid women (higher than the 50% mark) to the worst-paid men (lower than the 50% mark). That isn't exactly the most effective comparison you could make to support your point.

Quote from: Lukvance

But no, I don't have evidence. Hence the question to the more knowledgeable.

You should probably look for some evidence of your own, as well.

Quote from: Lukvance

The chart No.6 doesn't help me at all. Since the same diploma can lead to a great payed job or not.I like the example of lawyers. They all have the same diploma. Do you know how high is the gap between the best payed lawyer and the worst?

That's why they're taking the median point, since it's the dividing line between the top half and the bottom half. The point that they're making is that more than half of all women are paid less than half of all men, based on diplomas earned. It goes the same for most fields; you saw Figure 8, which showed the median weekly pay based on occupation, and for most of the ones they showed, there was a definite pay disparity.

Now, I personally doubt that most of this is due to blatant sexism - that is to say, men deliberately paying women less. But I'm pretty sure that at least some of that happens. Plus, sexism (or other -isms) can be pretty subtle, and it can go both directions (meaning, it affects women as well as men).

what if we go back to 100,000 BCE. back to when the neanderthals occupied the area of present day france. how did the male neanderthals treat their female counterparts? was there equality when it came to hunting and gathering? who was responsible for making the stone tools and bone ornaments and did they receive an equal outcome for their efforts? perhaps, compared with today, there was even more gender inequality back then, and that would be a full 90,000 years (give or take) before organized religion emerged on the scene... so maybe organized religion has helped women in the equality battle, and has been making progress ever since.

isn't it written in the bible somewhere "there is neither jew nor greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in christ jesus"...

^Nope. It's almost a dead certainty that there was far more gender equality in Neolithic tribes (aside from minor gender divisions of work done, which is irrelevant) than there ever was once the agricultural revolution got started (which is also when organized religion started to come about). Think about it. In a hunter-gatherer paradigm, women could not be overly burdened with children because the tribe did not have the resources to support those children, and therefore women would be in a position of greater equality because they could do other things besides raise children. Whereas, in an agricultural society, when you have surplus food being produced, there is no reason that women cannot get pregnant much more frequently, effectively meaning that they became much less equal to men. Their value to society became their ability to produce children rather than any other abilities they had, because that's the only thing they could do that men could not.

Don't look at cherry-picked writings from holy books, look at the actual way in which highly-religious societies treated women. Don't take my word for it; do your own research on the subject, and be ready to have your eyes opened.

At my current job, a co-worker doing similar work, who is female, makes less than me... she was laid off prior to getting this job and did not negotiate for more vacation or more money. I was recruited prior to that, and didn't need the job, so I calmly suggested that it needed to be worth it for me to make the switch. I was able to get a raise and similar vacation allocation over my prior job because I wasn't going in desperate.

Great. A live example. Could tell me who between you 2 have the most experience/education related with your work?